ngo sued 6 people. the faggots caught on video already defaulted. they didn't even show up and the judge already found them liable. these 2 remaining were not on video attacking him, but were part of the group.
ngo's attorney going after these 2 is weaksauce.
the jury did get dox threats though, which is a crime. judge didn't do shit other than increase security. but according to the article, the defense attorney herself was threatening them in open court. it's nuts.
According to Ngo's lawsuit, on May 7, 2019, John Hacker splashed an unknown liquid onto Ngo at a local gym, and then forcibly took Andy's phone. When Hacker refused to release the phone, gym employees allegedly interfered and returned the phone to Ngo. According to plaintiff Ngo, management later terminated Hacker's gym membership. Hacker testified that these allegations were true.
On May 28, 2021, Hacker allegedly took part in actions that led to Ngo being beaten by an Antifa mob. On that day, Ngo was monitoring Antifa attacks on the Portland Justice Center and the Portland police central precinct when Hacker allegedly approached him. The Antifa mob then yelled, "That's Andy! Get him! Get him!" Hacker testified that he approached Ngo and identified him to another journalist.
the facts not in dispute would be a motion for summary judgment, or at least a directed verdict. wouldn't even go to the jury. so either the facts as reported here are incorrect, or the judge is in on it too.
read the case info. it was a shit case.
ngo sued 6 people. the faggots caught on video already defaulted. they didn't even show up and the judge already found them liable. these 2 remaining were not on video attacking him, but were part of the group.
ngo's attorney going after these 2 is weaksauce.
the jury did get dox threats though, which is a crime. judge didn't do shit other than increase security. but according to the article, the defense attorney herself was threatening them in open court. it's nuts.
where does it say they admitted they assaulted him?
something else is going on here then.
prosecutor refused to prosecute.
the facts not in dispute would be a motion for summary judgment, or at least a directed verdict. wouldn't even go to the jury. so either the facts as reported here are incorrect, or the judge is in on it too.